Topic: Inclusion of clergy to offer prayer as part of public school ceremonies
Level or Type of Court: Supreme Court
Facts of the Case: Principal Robert E. Lee invited a rabbi to give invocations and benedictions at the school's graduation ceremony in which Deborah Weisman was a member of the graduating class. Deborah's father sought a "temporary restraining order to prohibit school officials form including prayers in the ceremony" shortly before the ceremony and was denied. The Wiseman family attended the ceremony where the prayers were said. Then Wiseman "sought a permanent injunction" prohibiting school officials from inviting clergy to deliver the invocations and benedictions at future graduation ceremonies.
Issues of the Case: Prayer in schools--Is including clerical members who offer prayers as part of the official school graduation ceremony consistent with the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment?
Decision(s):The U.S. Supreme Court held that "Including clergy who offer prayers as part of an official public school graduation ceremony is forbidden by the Establishment Clause. The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees, at a minimum, that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which 'establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.' Prayer exercises in elementary and secondary schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction... The petitioners' argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term 'voluntary'..." The United States Supreme Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit judgment.
Legal Significance for the Administrator:This case clarifies that clergy may not lead the student body in prayer at a school-sponsored event.If administrators are approached about having clergy members offer a prayer at a school-sponsored event, suggest that they meet before the event to allow interested members to participate so that no one is excluded in their right to convene, and in protecting those that might be opposed, such allowance would protect them in their right to be free from what may be interpreted as coercion by this group.
Part 2) Discussion Questions:
A Disabled Student and Related Services 1-5 (Josh & Angelique)
1. Is Young's decision defensible? Why or why not?
Young's decision is defensible. It would have been a stronger "case" for the school district IF she had NOT mentioned the expense factor. Money should not be used as a defense for why a district feels they are not the most suitable placement for a severally disabled student. Young would best have been served by simply stating that the school is not the most appropriate placement for Johnathan. Without any knowledge of where/how Johnathan had been educated prior to his sophomore year it is difficult to determine exactly how defensible this situation will be for the district. What was the prior IEP and how was the child receiving his education prior to this school year? Debbie Young has the experience of being a special education teacher as well as being a "seasoned" administrator. It can be assumed she has a good understanding of the laws associated with Special Education and the interpersonal communication skills required to serve in an administrative role. Another key factor would be deciding if these related services would help provide Jonathan the opportunity to receive passing marks and advance from grade to grade. Even with these related services, Jonathan may very well not receive passing marks or continue to move up in grade through the school.
2. Is the parent's request reasonable under the law? Why or why not?
The parent's request may seem reasonable in regards to the laws surrounding special education students. Based on PL 94-142 all children ages 3-21 are entitled to a free and appropriate public education, consistent with their needs. Subsequently the IDEA and IDEIA acts both support this law and require public schools to do everything in their power to provide children an appropriate education in a least restrictive environment. A parent may see their child's needs being best met in a public school. However, it is hard to determine what/who determines reasonableness. The final decision in a case such as this will lie in the courts.
3. Is the provision of a nurse a related service if it is necessary for Johnathan to receive an appropriate education? Why or why not?
No.....a related service is viewed as one that must be provided to allow the child with disabilities to benefit from special education. This can be a single service or an entire range of services/programs that may be needed to benefit the child. The case of Tatro is an example of the idea of related services. A school district will be required to provide simple medical procedures under the catagory of "related services" when such a procedure does NOT require complex mastery and the services are necessary for the child to benefit from an appropriate special education program. In this case the procedures that would need to be done with Johnathanrequire a nurse with "specialized training". It also is not clear that Johnathan will benefit in any way with this person by his side throughout the day. Again, there are unanswered questions in regards to his prior education and what is stated on his IEP. If it is assmumed that prior to this point he was either not in public schools or was in a type of program/school that had this nurse provision than it would be difficult to make the case for Johnathan and his parents. In both the Tatro and the case of Garrett the point of a medical services exclusion is stated. This case would be an example of how that is not the school districts requirement.
4. How do you think a court would rule in this case? Provide a rationale for your response.
We think a court would rule in favor of the school district. A "least resitrictive environment" is truly a relative concept which is shown and stated over and over in the cases presented in chapter 5. The courts held for the district in the case of Beth and the North Suburban Special Education School District. The district did not intentionally discriminate against Beth and was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I also think the courts ruling in the Tatro and the Garrett case would be part of the decision. TheTatro case provided a two-step analysis of of the related services definition which might be in favor of the school district.
5. What are the administrative implications of this case?
The implications are as follows:
*A lack of funds should NOT be used by school districts as a basis to deny children with disabilities a public education.
*School districts should be certain that they clearly understand the difference between medical services and related services.
Parental rights must be repected and addressed in matters relating to evaluation and IEP development.
School districts may be assessed attorney fees under the Handicapped Children's Protection Act, if a parent prevails in a suit for a violation of IDEA.
If the court ruled in favor of Jonathan than that would open up the schools to be required to serve anybody regardless of physical state. I think that this would be a large area of concern as school districts are not equipped to handle all students and not all students belong in the normalized school setting. Unfortunately, many people are born with conditions that make it impossible for them to move through the schooling system with their peers. I believe that these students should be taught life skills so that they can function to the best of their abilities in society. Expecting the school district to educate them similarly to their peers is doing an injustice to the student.
Disability and Participation in Athletics 1-6 (Gary)
Group responses to the questions should be posted on the Discussion Board as Assignment 6 - Students with Disabilities. Be sure to read the other postings and compare their responses to yours.
1.Recent case law reflects a split decision regarding the legality of excluding students from participation in soprts whose condition exposes them to increased risk of significant injury such as vision in one eye. There is no constitutionally protected right to play on an amature team. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against people with physical abnormalities or impairments. Sam should only be allowed to play if released by his personal physician and grees to wear the recommended protective equipment.
2. The school has the primary obligation to protect students from the risk of harm. The primary responsbility is to protect the student's health and safety. The scholarship is not a primary concern of the district.
3. No, since there is no constitutionally guranteed right to play competitive sports and a significant risk of harm. However,this decision should not be based on liability but the best interest of the individual student.
4. Thjis decision is dependent upon the recommendation of the personal physican and the school's medical advisor. However, the school must act judiciously to protect Sam since they best understand the risk of harm.
5. As principal, I would review existing policies and guidelines in the athletic department. I would review Sam's physical and contact the medical advisor of the athletic department. I would contact the special services director to review any special equipment that may be required to protect Sam. I would contact the local Department of Vocational Rehabilitation and request a representative be a part of the IEP team to facilitate appropriate care and direction are provided. I would contact the Department of Vision Impaired and seek recommendations to protect Sam from risk of injury. After a meeting with the above desinated professionals, I would make a recommendation to Sam's parents regarding Sam's ability to compete.
6. 1. Develop athletic policy that insures non-discrimintary practices and the "dignity of risk".
2. Detail safety requirments for each sport and address the required safety equipment and expected equipment for individual or health concerns.
3. Implement an appeal process to ensure the district athletic policy is reasonable, non-discriminatory and individualized. || ||
Title and Citation: (1992). U.S. Supreme Court: LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from FindLaw Web site: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=577
Topic: Inclusion of clergy to offer prayer as part of public school ceremonies
Level or Type of Court: Supreme Court
Facts of the Case: Principal Robert E. Lee invited a rabbi to give invocations and benedictions at the school's graduation ceremony in which Deborah Weisman was a member of the graduating class. Deborah's father sought a "temporary restraining order to prohibit school officials form including prayers in the ceremony" shortly before the ceremony and was denied. The Wiseman family attended the ceremony where the prayers were said. Then Wiseman "sought a permanent injunction" prohibiting school officials from inviting clergy to deliver the invocations and benedictions at future graduation ceremonies.
Issues of the Case:
Prayer in schools--Is including clerical members who offer prayers as part of the official school graduation ceremony consistent with the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment?
Decision(s): The U.S. Supreme Court held that "Including clergy who offer prayers as part of an official public school graduation ceremony is forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees, at a minimum, that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which 'establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.'
Prayer exercises in elementary and secondary schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction...
The petitioners' argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term 'voluntary'..."
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit judgment.
Legal Significance for the Administrator: This case clarifies that clergy may not lead the student body in prayer at a school-sponsored event. If administrators are approached about having clergy members offer a prayer at a school-sponsored event, suggest that they meet before the event to allow interested members to participate so that no one is excluded in their right to convene, and in protecting those that might be opposed, such allowance would protect them in their right to be free from what may be interpreted as coercion by this group.
Part 2) Discussion Questions:
A Disabled Student and Related Services 1-5 (Josh & Angelique)
1. Is Young's decision defensible? Why or why not?
Young's decision is defensible. It would have been a stronger "case" for the school district IF she had NOT mentioned the expense factor. Money should not be used as a defense for why a district feels they are not the most suitable placement for a severally disabled student. Young would best have been served by simply stating that the school is not the most appropriate placement for Johnathan. Without any knowledge of where/how Johnathan had been educated prior to his sophomore year it is difficult to determine exactly how defensible this situation will be for the district. What was the prior IEP and how was the child receiving his education prior to this school year? Debbie Young has the experience of being a special education teacher as well as being a "seasoned" administrator. It can be assumed she has a good understanding of the laws associated with Special Education and the interpersonal communication skills required to serve in an administrative role. Another key factor would be deciding if these related services would help provide Jonathan the opportunity to receive passing marks and advance from grade to grade. Even with these related services, Jonathan may very well not receive passing marks or continue to move up in grade through the school.
2. Is the parent's request reasonable under the law? Why or why not?
The parent's request may seem reasonable in regards to the laws surrounding special education students. Based on PL 94-142 all children ages 3-21 are entitled to a free and appropriate public education, consistent with their needs. Subsequently the IDEA and IDEIA acts both support this law and require public schools to do everything in their power to provide children an appropriate education in a least restrictive environment. A parent may see their child's needs being best met in a public school. However, it is hard to determine what/who determines reasonableness. The final decision in a case such as this will lie in the courts.
3. Is the provision of a nurse a related service if it is necessary for Johnathan to receive an appropriate education? Why or why not?
No.....a related service is viewed as one that must be provided to allow the child with disabilities to benefit from special education. This can be a single service or an entire range of services/programs that may be needed to benefit the child. The case of Tatro is an example of the idea of related services. A school district will be required to provide simple medical procedures under the catagory of "related services" when such a procedure does NOT require complex mastery and the services are necessary for the child to benefit from an appropriate special education program. In this case the procedures that would need to be done with Johnathanrequire a nurse with "specialized training". It also is not clear that Johnathan will benefit in any way with this person by his side throughout the day. Again, there are unanswered questions in regards to his prior education and what is stated on his IEP. If it is assmumed that prior to this point he was either not in public schools or was in a type of program/school that had this nurse provision than it would be difficult to make the case for Johnathan and his parents. In both the Tatro and the case of Garrett the point of a medical services exclusion is stated. This case would be an example of how that is not the school districts requirement.
4. How do you think a court would rule in this case? Provide a rationale for your response.
We think a court would rule in favor of the school district. A "least resitrictive environment" is truly a relative concept which is shown and stated over and over in the cases presented in chapter 5. The courts held for the district in the case of Beth and the North Suburban Special Education School District. The district did not intentionally discriminate against Beth and was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I also think the courts ruling in the Tatro and the Garrett case would be part of the decision. TheTatro case provided a two-step analysis of of the related services definition which might be in favor of the school district.
5. What are the administrative implications of this case?
The implications are as follows:
*A lack of funds should NOT be used by school districts as a basis to deny children with disabilities a public education.
*School districts should be certain that they clearly understand the difference between medical services and related services.
If the court ruled in favor of Jonathan than that would open up the schools to be required to serve anybody regardless of physical state. I think that this would be a large area of concern as school districts are not equipped to handle all students and not all students belong in the normalized school setting. Unfortunately, many people are born with conditions that make it impossible for them to move through the schooling system with their peers. I believe that these students should be taught life skills so that they can function to the best of their abilities in society. Expecting the school district to educate them similarly to their peers is doing an injustice to the student.
Disability and Participation in Athletics 1-6 (Gary)
Group responses to the questions should be posted on the Discussion Board as Assignment 6 - Students with Disabilities. Be sure to read the other postings and compare their responses to yours.
1.Recent case law reflects a split decision regarding the legality of excluding students from participation in soprts whose condition exposes them to increased risk of significant injury such as vision in one eye. There is no constitutionally protected right to play on an amature team. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against people with physical abnormalities or impairments. Sam should only be allowed to play if released by his personal physician and grees to wear the recommended protective equipment.
2. The school has the primary obligation to protect students from the risk of harm. The primary responsbility is to protect the student's health and safety. The scholarship is not a primary concern of the district.
3. No, since there is no constitutionally guranteed right to play competitive sports and a significant risk of harm. However,this decision should not be based on liability but the best interest of the individual student.
4. Thjis decision is dependent upon the recommendation of the personal physican and the school's medical advisor. However, the school must act judiciously to protect Sam since they best understand the risk of harm.
5. As principal, I would review existing policies and guidelines in the athletic department. I would review Sam's physical and contact the medical advisor of the athletic department. I would contact the special services director to review any special equipment that may be required to protect Sam. I would contact the local Department of Vocational Rehabilitation and request a representative be a part of the IEP team to facilitate appropriate care and direction are provided. I would contact the Department of Vision Impaired and seek recommendations to protect Sam from risk of injury. After a meeting with the above desinated professionals, I would make a recommendation to Sam's parents regarding Sam's ability to compete.
6. 1. Develop athletic policy that insures non-discrimintary practices and the "dignity of risk".
2. Detail safety requirments for each sport and address the required safety equipment and expected equipment for individual or health concerns.
3. Implement an appeal process to ensure the district athletic policy is reasonable, non-discriminatory and individualized. || ||